Personally, I think there is room for many more! The ones there are out there are generally way to bloated and weird functional hybrids that doesn’t solve key issues.
I would argue that the ones we have are way too model heavy, and makes all kinds of presumptions what a model is.
Stuff that does not belong in a javascript MVC framework:
-Bindings
-Routes
-Templates
-Coffeescript
Personally, depending on so many libraries is a turn off. Seems more like a collection of modules, than a framework. Also, hard to grasp how the MVC structure is wired. Example and test would be nice.
Seriously? What is the point of limiting yourself to one OS and then gripping about some app X not running on your flavor. Get a VM and buy a copy of Windows; problem solved. I have 4 OSes running on my laptop three of which are running under a VM. With the unity mode I don't normally even see the seams. I've got Snow Leopard, Windows 7, Ubuntu and Redhat. Actually I have 5 OSes but I don't use my Windows 8 pre-release which might have expired by now.
I am eagerly anticipating tools like this maturing to a level where really serious development can take place. I mean, I did a good bit of development in Flash and Flex but things really didn't take off for me until there were really powerful editing tools that went beyond dropping a few things on a canvas and tying them together with code. This tool but at a Unity 3D level of editing would super nice.
"Seriously? What is the point of limiting yourself to one OS and then gripping about some app X not running on your flavor."
Really. I think you are missing the point. It's kind of sad seeing a modern browser app not being able to run on multiple platforms.
In my optics it undermines the whole idea about creating browser apps. If files system hooks are the problem, let me just save online or via the browser api.
In the future, I'd like to be able to get some stuff done without having to spin up 5 OS'es.
I'm interested in trying this out. If you don't mind, could you please tell me the type and basic specs of your laptop and the name of the VM software you're using? From there I'll Google the rest.
A few years ago nobody criticized an author for calling his work a book if it didn't have an electronic version. We are now clearly in a transition phase [1], but it is plain that soon it will be acceptable and in fact expected to forgo the print edition when publishing "a book". A significant threat to content preservation, but that's another story.
What distinguishes a book is the 'form factor'. Obviously we are talking about an e-book. Nonetheless little care has been put into producing a 'book': not TOC, no index, no page numbers, etc.
(Obviously this is all independent of the content.)
These are outdated requests, maybe with the exception of the TOC, which soon should also be taken care of by technology [1].
Regarding the index, if you are willing to visit the single-page version, a simple CTRL-F gives you the 70 references to "DOM", for instance. Your modern browser quickly shows how those references are spread in the document. That is pretty much an optimal index to me, with an unlimited number of entries, rendering the separate and physically constrained notion of index obsolete.
And why pages? In today's world of wildly diverse screen sizes and resolutions, please let the content flow. I remember being led to the wrong place of a book in my college years just because the edition I consulted happened to different from the author's, but I found that reasonable in the paper age. Semantically demarcated concepts such as chapters or sections have always been referred in this way, and rightly so. If you think about it, page numbers only helped you locate verbatim excerpts such as "to be, or not to be" in [2]. A completely valid and efficient artifact of the pre-digital era, which has now become dispensable, just as indexes have.
I have never been a big fan of "easy" data binding, and totally agree that data is not to be stored in the html. Same reason why you don't use your kitchen table as the pantry...
